ilocos region 1 - the asia foundation field appraisal of decentralization: region 1 6 the ilocos...

Ilocos

Region 1

Rapid FieldAppraisal of Decentralization

This study is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) through Cooperative Agreement Number AID 492-A-00-09-00031-00. The contents are the responsibility of The Asia Foundation and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

Regularization of Devolved Functions

3

Regularization ofDevolved Functions

Agnes Grace Cargamento

ExEcutivE Summary

The appraisal found the local government units (LGUs) in the region to have continued with that “comfortable level of operation and regularization of their devolved functions… participatory, consultative and consensual approaches to local governance…” that was seen in the previous appraisal conducted. The LGUs at all levels, after 18 years of the Local Government Code (LGC) implementation, appear to have reached what in the organizational development parlance is known as the “norming-performing stages… the organization has found a good way to work and with high levels of commitment and competence”1.

LGUs at all levels are now performing their devolved functions with regularity, with operating processes entrenched into the LGU system through the LGU citizen’s charters. After the “trial and error” stage in the 1990s, the LGUs have reached their level of comfort in doing things, setting their service delivery norms and standards, identifying and negotiating among the LGU staff on responsibility centers in the departments, and setting the time frames and fees for key LGU services delivered to their clients. Yet while LGUs – mostly the cities and municipalities – have documented and enshrined their service processes into their citizen’s charters by 2005 to 2007, these have yet to be translated into specific LGU staff performance standards that could be used for measuring service delivery performance.

In terms of local governance and administration, LGUs continue to rely on their Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) share for a substantial amount of resources to fund the services they deliver and the local development initiatives they exercise within their localities. The LGUs in the region continue to receive their share from Republic Act (RA) 7171 funds, using these for programs and projects in agriculture and social services for the farmers. Yet even as they still rely heavily on external revenue sources, most LGUs have taken more steps to enhance their local revenue sources, enacting legislation like investment codes to encourage economic activities in their localities. LGUs, particularly the provinces, have also explored operating and running their own utility services (such as the water utility service in La Union) and facilities (like agricultural processing plants in Ilocos Sur) as local economic enterprises.

1 Hardingham and Royal, Teamwork in Practice: Pulling Together, Jaico Publishing House, 2001, p. 47.

Rapid Field Appraisal of Decentralization: Region 1

4

Health and social service indicators, including peace and security, have exhibited increasing (although still erratic trends) from 2000 to 2007.

Theoretically, rural and urban areas have different characteristics, needs, and priorities. Consequently, the contributions they can make to development are different as well. Urban areas and rural areas, therefore, need distinct governance structures, systems, and resources that would reflect and accommodate their differences. While the LGC defines certain distinctions between cities (as “consisting of more urbanized and developed barangays”) and municipalities, these are not yet evident in practice in the LGUs covered in this RFA as these cities have not “outgrown” their characteristics as rural municipalities. In other words, there is not much distinction or difference on the services provided by the cities and those of municipalities.

What has become evident, however, is the role these cities have taken as resource centers for their adjacent and surrounding municipalities. Because of bigger budgets to allocate for service delivery, these cities have been able to provide services even to residents of other LGUs. Sta. Catalina, for instance, has not been allocating any budgets for providing certain services (e.g. a marketplace) that its residents can avail of in Vigan City next door. San Fernando City’s health facilities cater to residents of other municipalities. The cities, for their part, have turned to the adjacent municipalities for some of their needs. Thus, San Fernando City relies on San Gabriel town for its water requirements.

introduction

1) The LGC that was passed in 1991 provided the legal basis for the devolution and transfer of responsibilities to LGUs for the delivery of services in the sectors of health, agriculture, social welfare, tourism, and environment in varying degrees of authorities and responsibilities2.

2) The LGC provided for greater taxing and other revenue generating powers for LGUs to allow them to carry out these devolved functions and their other responsibilities. These measures were intended to advance “genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them (LGUs) to attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the attainment of the national goals”3.

3) Rapid Field Appraisals (RFAs) have been conducted since 1992 to monitor the progress of LGC implementation and identify issues and problems that hampered the “full flowering” of decentralization.

2 See Annex A for the summary of basic services and facilities devolved to LGUs by virtue of Sec. 17 of the LGC/RA 7160.

3 Section 2, LGC.


5

4) In the Ilocos Region or Region 1, past RFAs have consistently seen that devolution has proceeded slowly and steadily. Beginning from a “wait and see” attitude moving to a “trial and error” phase, the LGUs, as seen in the 9th RFA in 1999, seem to have progressed to “a comfortable level of operation and regularization of their devolved functions…by participatory, consultative and consensual approaches to local governance….” The documentation and sharing of LGU good practices done by LGUs at that time with the assistance of the LGU leagues, national government agencies (NGAs) with devolved functions, and oversight NGAs including the Regional Development Council (RDC), led to the establishment of some standards for good performance in basic service delivery. This prevailing imitation (“do as the others are doing” or “gaya-gaya”) and adaptation of good practices continued on to exhibit the growing capability of the LGUs in the region “to flexibly respond to service delivery needs.” The initial complaints on inadequate financial resources and unfunded mandates were eclipsed by complaints on irregularity in the release of LGU shares from the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) and RA 7171 (tobacco fund) and the absence of guidelines for LGU sharing in the proceeds from the use of national wealth in their LGU territories.

5) This RFA is being conducted 10 years after the last RFA in 2000 “…to assess local government performance… establish the results of decentralization, 18 years since the LGC was first implemented”4.

The following LGUs were selected for the appraisal:

Table 1: Sample LGUs

LGU Land Area(Sq km.)

Population (2007)

Income class(2007)

2006 IRA(In P000)

La Union 1,395.0 720,972 1st 779,930San Fernando City 102.7 114,813 3rd 183,000Agoo 52.8 57,952 1st -Santol 93.7 11,712 4th -

Ilocos Sur 2,596.0 632,255 1st 450,150Vigan City 25.1 47,246 5th 270,800San Ildefonso 11.4 6,670 5th -

Pangasinan 5,144.5 2,645,395 1st 1,164,260Lingayen (capital) 62.8 95,773 1st -Mangaldan 48.5 90,391 1st -Mangatarem 317.5 65,366 2nd -

Source: 2008 Ilocos Region Social and Economic Trends, NSCB

4 RFA project document


6

The Ilocos Region or Region I is composed of four provinces, nine cities, 117 municipalities, and 3,265 barangays. At the time of the passage of the LGC, Ilocos had only three cities. San Fernando and Urdaneta became cities in 1998, while Alaminos, Vigan, and Candon followed their lead in 2001. Batac is the newest city of the region, having made the transition from township after 2007.

Table 2: Geo-Political Subdivision (as of 12/31/2009)

Indicator Ilocos Norte Ilocos Sur La Union Pangasinan Region 1

No. of cities 2 2 1 4 9No. of mun. 22 32 19 44 117No. of brgys. 557 768 576 1,364 3,265

Source: NSCB

Land Area and Land Classification

Ilocos has a total land area of 12,840 sq. km., with the province of Pangasinan occupying the largest area (5,368 sq. km.), taking almost 42 percent of the total, and La Union the smallest (1,493 sq. km.) at nearly 12 percent.

Around 8,100 sq. km., or two-thirds of the region’s land area, are classified alienable and disposable. These areas are for intensive land use for crop, livestock, and poultry production, and for built-up or settlement purposes. The management of the use of these areas fall under the jurisdiction of LGUs, as guided by their Provincial Physical Framework Plans (PPFPs) and/or their Municipal/City Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUPs). Forestlands make up the rest of the area, with 4,408 sq. km.

Table 3: Land Area and Land Classification (2007)Ilocos Norte Ilocos Sur La Union Pangasinan Region I

Total Area (has) 339,934 257,958 149,309 536,818 1,284,019A and D Land 144,948 138,412 120,307 406,395 810,062Unclassified Forest - 26,176 4,132 2,847 33,155Classified Forest 194,986 93,370 24,870 127,576 440,802

Population and Population Growth Rate

As of 2007, Region I had a population of 4,545,906. About 58 percent of the region’s people could be found in Pangasinan and its component cities, which had some 2,645,395 people. Among the provinces, Ilocos Sur had the least number of people (632,255), or just around 14 percent of the region’s total. Among the municipalities, Carasi in Ilocos Norte registered the least population in 2007, with 1,435 people, while Malasiqui in Pangasinan had the largest, with 122,820 people – bigger than the population of cities in the region, except for Dagupan and San Carlos (the city with


7

the largest population). The average population growth in the region for the period 2000 to 2007 was at 1.1 percent, down from the rate of 2.15 percent recorded for the period 1995-2000. Except for eight municipalities (three each in Ilocos Norte and Ilocos Sur and two in La Union, all in the upland areas) and the City of Dagupan, all LGUs in the region registered declining growth rates, with Alilem, Cervantes, and Lidlidda – all in Ilocos Sur – even registering negative growth rates.

Table 4: Population and Population Density in persons/sq. km., (2007)Ilocos Norte Ilocos Sur La Union Pangasinan Region 1

2007 Pop’n 547,284 632,255 720,972 2,645,395 4,545,906Pop’n Density 130.7 243.5 434.5 430.6 348.4

Poverty Threshold and Incidence

The Ilocos Region’s poverty threshold in 2007 was registered at P15,562, slightly lower than the 2006 level of P15,956. Poverty incidence in the region declined from 29.5 percent in 2000 to 26.2 percent in 2006. The magnitude of poor families, however, increased in absolute numbers – from 237,910 families in 2000 to 248,443 families in 2006. In 2006, poverty incidence and the annual per capita poverty threshold were highest in La Union.

Table 5: Poverty Incidence by Province (2007)Indicator Ilocos Norte Ilocos Sur La Union Pangasinan Region I

Annual per capita poverty threshold (P)2000 13143 13515 12978 12363 126872006 16207 16922 16372 15656 159562007 14779 14961 15826 15743 15562

Magnitude of Poor Families2000 19466 35189 42654 140601 2379102003 21694 28302 33163 130687 2138462006 20362 35779 40641 151660 248443

Poverty incidence (%)2000 18.2 30.4 33.2 30.8 29.52003 19.6 22.8 24.6 25.8 24.42006 17.1 27.2 27.6 27.6 26.2

Income Classification

In 1996, only two of the region’s provinces – Pangasinan and Ilocos Sur – were classified as 1st class; La Union and Ilocos Norte were considered 2nd class provinces. By 2007, all the provinces had reached the 1st class category. The newer cities in the region, however, are in the lower-income class. The cities have not shown any movement


8

in income class except for Candon, which inched up from 5th to 4th class, and Laoag, which slid from 2nd to 3rd class. By comparison, most of the municipalities are 3rd and 4th class. The Ilocos Region also no longer has 6th class municipalities and its 5th class municipalities are now down to 20.

Table 6: Income Classification

No. of LGUs Ilocos Norte Ilocos Sur La Union Pangasinan Region I

Cities 2001 2007 2001 2007 2001 2007 2001 2007 2001 20071st class2nd class 1 2 2 3 23rd class 1 1 1 1 1 2 34th class 1 15th class 2 1 1 1 3 2

Municipalities1st-2nd 1 2 1 2 4 6 16 15 22 253rd-4th 15 15 18 19 11 9 26 27 70 705th -6th 6 5 12 10 4 4 1 1 23 20

Note: Calasiao in Pangasinan is classified urban with no income classification. Gregorio del Pilar in Ilocos Sur is classified rural with no income classification. Receipts and Expenditures of LGUs in Region I

LGU receipts and expenditures increased from 2000 to 2005 then declined in 2006. Provincial governments exhibited erratic trends in this regard while both receipts and expenditures of cities and municipalities increased steadily. In 2006, La Union, the smallest province in terms of land area, registered the second highest total receipts while Ilocos Norte, the second largest in terms of land area, registered the lowest total financial resources.

Table 7: Summary of Receipts and Expenditures of LGUs in Region I,in thousand pesos

LGU/Particulars 2000 2005 2006Region I

Total Financial Resources 6,885,636 14,313,602 12,236,100Total Receipts 6,256,490 12,925,667 10,811,350Total Expenditures 5,948,878 11,725,316 10,714,410

Provincial governmentsTotal Financial Resources 2,353,634 6,197,842 4,133,800Total Receipts 2,072,140 5,725,210 3,629,570Total Expenditures 1,987,554 5,192,822 3,662,820


9

LGU/Particulars 2000 2005 2006City governments

Total Financial Resources 1,139,070 2,409,681 2,249,150Total Receipts 1,097,788 2,067,599 1,932,020Total Expenditures 975,719 342,082 1,808,640

Municipal GovernmentsTotal Financial Resources 3,392,932 5,706,079 5,853,150Total Receipts 3,086,562 5,132,858 5,249,760Total Expenditures 2,985,605 4,613,915 5,242,950

rESuLtS OF DEcENtraLiZatiON

i. Local Governance and administration

“Local governance...comprises a set of state and non-state institutions, mechanisms and processes, through which public goods and services are delivered to citizens and through which citizens can articulate their interests and needs, mediate their differences and exercise their rights and obligations”5.

The LGUs in the region are in various stages of implementing the Local Governance Performance Management System (LGPMS), a web-based, self-diagnostic tool introduced in 2005. The LGPMS has 76 indicators to measure the state of local governance performance in four areas: administrative governance, delivery of social services, economic development, and environmental management. The RDC and the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) Regional Office have been giving performance awards to LGUs on the basis of the LGPMS results.

The LGUs covered in the appraisal agree that the instrument is useful for identifying weaknesses in their operations, thereby making it much simpler to pinpoint which areas are weak and need assistance or intervention. In some instances, like that of Mangatarem, LGUs have used the results of the assessment to negotiate for assistance from the League of Municipalities and the Mayor’s Development Center for IT assistance for local revenue (e.g. real property tax and business permits and licensing) enhancement. In most LGUs, the LGPMS results have become the starting point for the preparation of the state of local government reports of the local chief executives (LCEs).

Local Legislation

Local legislation is a function of the local sanggunian, which is composed of the vice mayor/vice governor as presiding officer, the regular sanggunian members, the president of the Liga ng Barangay, the president of the federation of Sangguniang Kabataan, and

5 A User’s Guide to Measuring Local Governance, UNDP Oslo Governance Center,


10

the sectoral representatives. As provided for in the LGC, the legislative body shall “enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the LGU and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of the LGC and in the proper exercise of the corporate powers of the LGU as provided for under Section 22 of this LGC…”. In particular, the sanggunian shall:

a) approve ordinances and pass resolutions necessary for an effective and efficient municipal government, including those for maintaining peace and order, imposing fines for the violation of said ordinances, protecting the inhabitants from the harmful effects of man-made or natural disasters and calamities, preventing and suppressing activities inimical to the welfare and morals of the inhabitants, protecting the environment and imposing penalties on acts that endanger the environment, and on matters pertaining to the administration of the LGU;

b) generate and maximize the use of resources and revenues for the development plans and priorities of the LGU with “particular attention to agro-industrial development and countryside progress”;

c) grant franchises or enact ordinances authorizing the issuance of permits or licenses or levying fees and charges for activities that promote the general welfare of the inhabitants, including setting the fees and charges for LGU services, regulations of businesses and the practice of professions, regulate the operation of tricycles, operation or lease of public utilities, or the operation and maintenance of public markets or slaughterhouses;

d) regulate activities relative to the use of land, buildings and structures within the LGU; and

e) approve ordinances that ensure the efficient and effective delivery of the basic services provided for under Section 17 of the LGC.

Local legislation in the last two years for the LGUs covered in the appraisal was focused largely on amending existing codes and ordinances and the localization of national laws and codes, including those on youth and child welfare, gender and women’s concerns, and the environment, with the latter concentrating mostly on solid waste management and sanitation. The amendments of existing local ordinances were done mostly to introduce or update legislation regulating operations of local businesses that have mushroomed even in low-income municipalities, such as water purifying stations and computer shops, as well as the regulation of public facilities and utilities, like market stall rentals or tricycle fees.

Technical assistance from the national government, particularly from the DILG and from the Leagues, on local legislation was observed to have increased, with focus on greater executive-legislative interaction through the formulation of the executive-legislative agenda (ELA) at all levels of LGUs covered in the appraisal. Through the formulation of the ELA, the LGUs have had a venue for promoting interaction between the legislative and the executive departments to determine priorities and needs. Their


11

respective ELAs have also enabled the LGUs to establish a mechanism for strategically focusing legislative support for the executive priorities. The ELAs have also made plans and programs become the joint accountability and responsibility of the LGUs’ executive and legislative departments.

Notwithstanding the increasing exercise of local legislative powers, there is a dearth of local legislation for promoting “agro-industrial development or countryside progress,” as well as land use regulations. LGUs, including cities, are wanting in the technical expertise to formulate ordinances and regulations that promote local economic development.

transparency

Citizens’ Charters have been popularized among the LGUs as the means to document and inform their clients and the public in general on LGU service processes. The documentation of the service cycles and process flows of basic services, the personnel responsible, corresponding fees and charges, as well as delivery time frame for these basic services have become ubiquitous in LGU premises. But while the process of formulating these citizens’ charters have allowed the LGU personnel the opportunity to review their service processes, they have not succeeded in accompanying these with appropriate client satisfaction measures or in translating these processes into standard personnel performance evaluation systems.

Information on LGU programs and initiatives are given wider dissemination through radio programs, publication of LGU newsletters, or maintenance of LGU websites. The regularity and timeliness of these media, however, vary among LGUs, although the airing of radio programs by the LGU service departments were observed to have been more predictable.

LGUs have been creating Public Information Offices (PIOs), designating public information and liaison officers, and establishing public assistance desks in prominent places within LGU premises in an effort to immediately address the needs of the public. Non-goverment organizations (NGO) Desks, complete with officers, have also been established to assist NGOs and civil society groups in participating in community development efforts. Participation and Participatory Development

The concept of subsidiarity accepts that the governance authority situated closest to the people can best recognize and understand local needs. As a result, the governance authority closest to the people is best able to tailor decisions and activities to respond to those needs. Subsidiarity also accepts that transparency and accountability for performance are enhanced when functions are implemented by the governance authority that is closest to the people affected by those functions. Based on this principle, the LGC provides that LGUs shall be given more powers, responsibilities, and resources


12

to enable them “to attain their full development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the attainment of national goals.”

In pursuance of this policy, the LGUs covered in the RFA are implementing such mechanisms as “Operation Tulong sa Barangay” (OTB) of La Union and KABSAT and SARANAY in Ilocos Sur to promote transparency and participation in planning, monitoring, and service delivery. These mechanisms allow for regular barangay immersion of LGU service providers with their clients and greater interaction and complementation of efforts of these service providers at different levels of organization, i.e., between local government personnel and national government representatives at the local level. During these visits, even sanggunian sessions are held in the barangays to allow for greater direct consultation with constituents. In Ilocos Sur, the NGO and NGA partners of the province join these barangay sorties, which serve as venues for LGU-national government agency (NGA)-non-government organization (NGO) complementation of support for lower level LGUs.

Development Planning

LGUs are continuously exploring and trying out new or improved planning systems imposed on them by NGAs assisting them in their planning processes. The plans they produce, though, are still largely prepared for compliance and are hardly used as guides for decision-making. In the family of LGU plans, the ELA (three-year strategic plan), which contains the development focus and the annual list of priority projects (i.e., the annual investment plan) identified to implement this practical development vision and strategies over a three-year period, is emerging as the most practical and implementable.

Most of the LGUs covered in the appraisal are in various stages of updating their PPFP or CLUP, along with the implementing mechanisms such as zoning ordinances. The updating process has been slow because of constant changes in guidelines. These changes in turn stem from the NGAs’ attempt to enhance the LGUs’ planning processes with the consolidation of the different plans or the inclusion of disaster management and human rights concerns. In the case of municipalities, the Municipal

Planning and Development Councils (MPDCs) complained of having to take on other responsibilities, like secretariat work for the Bids and Awards Committees (BAC), which take up time leaving not much time left to complete the CLUP updating. Some LGUs allocate resources or negotiate for external assistance to do the job. Santol, for


13

instance, was assisted by a Canadian consultant who prepared the draft CLUP. All these have resulted in LGUs using plans that are not reflective of the current situation in their localities.

The planning process has become a venue for inter-LGU collaboration and complementation of efforts. In the three provinces covered in the appraisal, inter-LGU planning collaboration is being practiced vertically (province-municipal) and horizontally (inter-municipal). The province of Ilocos Sur, for example, has collaborated with its municipalities in the preparation of a tourism master plan that interlinks tourism initiatives at the provincial and municipal levels. La Union in San Fernando City has been conducting a metro area planning activity in collaboration with the province, to come up with programs and projects with inter-LGU linkages. San Fernando likewise assisted three municipalities, including Santol and Agoo, in conducting their executive-legislative strategic planning activities at the start of their term in 2007. These municipalities went to translate their strategic plans into their ELAs, which became the bases for their respective annual investment plans and budget proposals for 2007 to 2010.

LGUs are allocating more resources for participatory planning activities, database build-up and updating, and for capacity development and enhancement of planning staff. The League of Local Planners has been active in conducting seminars and training programs for its members, integrating technical discussions and workshops in their regular league meetings. In Pangasinan, the LGUs share resources in the updating of their LGU profiles. The Provincial Planning and Development Office (PPDO) prepares the provincial profile and database from data inputs of both the cities and municipalities and the NGA offices in the province, and then distributes the data to the lower level LGUs for use in their own profiling and data updating.

resource Generation

Total financial resources6 of the LGUs of Region I amounted to P12.925 billion in 2005, almost double the corresponding sum of P6.886 billion in 2000. LGU financial resources registered an increasing trend over this period.

The IRA has remained to be the biggest contributor of tax revenues of LGUs. In 2005, for the provincial governments, the IRA accounted for 65 percent of total receipts. The real property tax share of the provinces hardly made a dent in total revenues, accounting for only five percent in total revenues/receipts. Non-tax revenues, mostly from operating and miscellaneous revenues, accounted for almost 10 percent of total revenues of the provincial governments. The proportion to total receipts of non-tax revenues increased from11 percent in 2000 to 15.8 percent in 2005, while those of tax revenues declined.

6 Data used in this section were taken from Table 15.3 of the 2008 Regional and Social Economic Trends, published by the NSCB, December 2008.


14

For the region’s city governments in 2005, the IRA accounted for 62 percent of total receipts and 79 percent of tax revenues. For municipalities, IRA accounted for 65 percent of total receipts and 78 percent of tax revenues.

Table 8: LGU tax and non-tax revenues in thousand pesos (2005)Provincial City Municipal Region 1

Total Receipts 5,725,210 2,067,599 5,132,858 12,925,667 Total tax revenue 4,823,373 1,728,532 4,287,436 10,839,341 IRA 3,737,706 1,286,392 3,328,659 8,352,757 RPT 291,542 81,512 238,424 611,478 Local tax 538,531 317,043 342,763 1,198,337 Total non-tax rev 901,867 339,067 845,432 1,185,400 Oper/Misc rev 551,997 274,807 505,200

While LGUs have been taking measures to improve internal revenue generation, their moves have been cautious and taken through periodic review and updating of local revenue codes. There are growing efforts to explore non-traditional and non-tax revenue sources, such as management/co-management of assets and facilities. The People’s Center of Agoo, for instance, was converted from a park to a commercial center leased to a mall and commercial establishments. The province of La Union has explored taking over the management of the Bauang Power Plant and the La Union Water District. Ilocos Sur and Pangasinan took over the management of national agricultural facilities and leased these to private firms after rehabilitating them to make them operational. But because such steps have been taken gingerly, these have resulted in slight, even almost insignificant, increase in the proportion of non-tax revenues to total LGU revenues. From 2000 to 2006, the municipal governments exhibited the biggest increase in proportion of non-tax revenues to total receipts at four percent, compared to 2.5 percent for provincial governments and one percent for city governments.

resource allocation and utilization Between 2000 and 2005, LGUs in the region almost doubled their expenditures. The provinces registered the biggest increase over the period, with total expenditures rising by 160 percent. The municipalities increased their expenditures by only 54 percent.

Table 9: LGU Expenditures (2005)Provincial City Municipal Region 1

General public services

2,423,397(46.7%)

953,639 (49.7%)

2,357,950(51%)

5,734,986(48.9%)

Economic services

1,058,216(20.4%)

409,472(21.3%)

884,801(19.2%)

2,352,489(20.1%)

Social services 501,656(10%)

183,787(9.6%)

483,431(10.5%)

1,168,874(10%)


15

Provincial City Municipal Region 1

Others 1,209,553(23.3%)

371,681(19.4%)

887,733(19.2%)

2,468,967(21%)

Total 5,192,822 1,918,579 4,613,915 11,725,316

LGU expenditures were largely for general public services, which took almost 50 percent regardless of LGU level. Expenditures for economic services amounted to 20 percent of total expenditures.

customer Service

Customer feedback systems are starting to gain popularity. Some LGUs place “Suggestions and Complaints” boxes in conspicuous areas so that constituents can submit feedback regarding the services they receive from local governments. In other LGUs, interviews or survey questionnaires are administered randomly to generate similar feedback. In San Fernando City, some offices, particularly the Health Department and the Permits and Licensing Unit, randomly interview their clients to determine customer satisfaction. In Ilocos Sur and La Union, the staff that conduct the preparatory activities for their OTB and KABSAT also conduct some form of client-satisfaction surveys at the barangays.

Human resource management

Human resource management refers to the “philosophy, policies, procedures and practices related to the management of people within an organization to ultimately achieve its organizational objectives”7. The devolution of basic services mandated by the LGC brought with it the increase in LGU human resources needing an effective system to satisfy their needs and achieve organizational objectives. Subsequently, the NGAs whose functions have been devolved, together with the oversight agencies coordinated by the DILG and in partnership with the LGU leagues, have been conducting general and specialized training and capacity building for local officials and staff in planning and budgeting, accounting, legislation, project management, and basic service delivery processes. The regional offices of NGAs with devolved functions continue to provide technical assistance to the devolved personnel in the LGUs. In some cases, these Technical Assistance (TA) from NGAs are the only means of retraining and capacity enhancement for the LGU personnel.

LGUs are allocating more resources for capacity development for their human resources, as well as providing more benefits and incentives for all, not just to a limited number of staff. LGUs are conducting Lakbay Aral activities within the Ilocos Region, as well as to other areas. These have become the most popular and common way of inter-LGU sharing and exposure to good practices worthy of emulation.

7 Handbook of Modern Management in Philippine Local Government, p. 78.


16

ii. Health and Social Services (including Peace and Security)

For the period 2000 to 2006, expenditures8 for health and social services registered the biggest increases at all LGU levels, compared to expenditures for economic and general public services. The municipal governments, however, registered the least increase, from P339.4 million in 2000 to P532.3 million in 2006. Provincial government expenditures over the same period more than tripled, from P289.2 million in 2000 to P975.8 million in 2006, while city government expenditures almost tripled from P79.9 million in 2000 to P239 million in 2006.

LGUs at all levels have shown that they are spending more for health and social services. Their expenditures are also no longer only for personal services, but also for operating costs to implement health programs and improve health facilities. Foremost among their expenditure items are the expansion of health coverage for indigent families and preparations for calamities and disasters that seem to be occurring more frequently and more severely.

In their desire for universal health coverage, LGUs are expanding health-service access especially for indigent groups through the enrolment of more families to PhilHealth. The LGUs are going into inter-LGU partnerships (e.g. province with municipality) or partnership with their congressmen for more financial resources to secure wider health coverage for their constituents. Such coverage often benefits not only the indigent families in the LGU, but also the LGU’s health facility (e.g. Regional Health Unit [RHU]) and health care personnel providing the service.

The Department of Health (DOH) processes for mandatory consultation and coordination with LGUs at all levels have been institutionalized through the DOH representation in the Local Health Boards (LHBs) and by imbedding health personnel in the cadre of health service providers at the municipal, city, and provincial levels. LGUs continue to implement health programs largely through the DOH-introduced inter-local health zones (ILHZ) and integrated health service delivery system that provides for the integration of health service delivery at a specified and defined geographic area (e.g. the district or the municipality).

The ILHZ was introduced early into the implementation of the LGC as a health service delivery strategy after devolution to re-integrate hospital (curative) services with primary health care (preventive) aspects of health services and minimize the duplication or redundancy of services. In Region I, La Union has been cited for its success in operationalizing the ILHZ through its “Health in Every Home” program.

Pangasinan likewise embarked on a hospital upgrading program for its hospitals and an aggressive public health program. This twin focuses on health service delivery

8 Data taken from Table 15.4 of the NSCB’s 2008 Ilocos Region Social and Economic Trends.


17

were accompanied by a reorganization of the provincial health office. This in turn essentially (re)defined the roles and functions of the provincial technical manpower of public health and placed these in partnership and in tandem for health service delivery with hospital personnel at the district level and health care providers at the municipal level. The recent declining trend in the key indicators9 of CDR, MMR, IMR, and malnutrition rate appear to indicate effectiveness in the province’s primary health program implementation. In terms of facility and service provider ratios, however, the situation in Pangasinan left a lot to be desired, with its hospital bed to population ratio of 1:1,288 worse than the region’s 1:1,127, and its doctor to population ratio declining from 1:12,718 in 2007 to 1:14,233 in 2008.

As for education, LGUs are focusing on programs, in partnership with NGAs and NGOs, to improve literacy and upgrade skills through non-formal initiatives. These include the establishment and operation of community learning centers that offer livelihood training, as well as courses with potential for overseas employment (ranging from massage to welding).

Agoo, La Union, meanwhile, set up a Municipal Literacy Coordinating Council as part of its efforts to “put the ‘all’ in ‘education for all’.” Its multi-awarded Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning Program10, which includes a structured literacy/post-literacy component, scholarship support for schoolchildren, and skills training for income generating activities, has been continuing municipal program carried over from one administration to another. The program has become such a “good practice” that other municipalities in the province, including Santol, have adapted versions of it.

For social welfare services, the focus of LGU activities has been on disaster-risk management (DRM). With external impetus and NGA assistance, the local planning and implementation processes continue to be DRM-enhanced in an effort to prepare the LGUs for relief and recovery operations in times of disasters and calamities, as well as to provide the support for rehabilitation and development after the occurrence of a calamity. Disaster management has driven LGUs to explore greater collaboration and

9 Based on health situationer in the Pangasinan Provincial Development and Physical Framework Plan, 2009-2104, p 80-81.

10 The program was awarded the 2009 UNDESCO Confucius Prize for Literacy after garnering provincial and regional literacy awards.


18

partnership with the private sector and NGOs. At the same time, the LGUs have been allocating more funds for the construction or purchase of necessary equipment and facilities for disaster mitigation and/or response readiness.

One unintended benefit has emerged when LGUs set aside a substantial amount of the disaster/calamity fund: the availability of the unused amount for staff incentives and bonuses at the end of the year.

Next to the review and updating of legislation on (existing) revenue measures, those on the development and promotion of welfare of vulnerable population segments such as children, women, and the elderly, have been the most commonly pursued legislative measures especially among the municipalities and cities covered by this appraisal.

iii. Local Economic Development

LGU initiatives to promote local economic development (LED) have remained largely agri-based. Local agricultural development support, in turn, is still driven largely by the Department of Agriculture (DA). But with LGU support measures uncoordinated and not integrated between LGU levels, duplication or mismatch of support and need has been known to occur. For instance, both the 5th class municipalities of Santol (in La Union) and Sta. Catalina (in Ilocos Sur) say that their respective Offices of the Provincial Agriculturist do not coordinate technical assistance efforts with their municipal counterparts. The DA regional field office is also guilty of the same non-coordination, they say. This has left both Santol and Sta. Catalina no choice but to obtain more relevant technical assistance from elsewhere, like state agricultural universities in the area.

Interestingly, a growing number of local chief executives in the region are no longer waiting for national support to explore the production of crops that are more suitable for their areas. In fact, Region I LGUs are relying more on their own resources for agricultural support, including the development of appropriate production technology and the promotion of organic farming – even providing assistance for the production of organic fertilizers. Sta. Catalina has been conducting its own research and testing of high yield varieties of organically grown carrots and leeks. Santol, meanwhile, has been experimenting with the production of fruits like rambutan and lanzones which are not traditionally grown there.

Despite the strong desire to promote entrepreneurship and agribusiness development, the LGU representatives interviewed have admitted to limited LGU capacity and technical knowledge in planning for and pursuing endeavors along these areas. At the very least, some of them have passed legislative measures that have created councils for local investment and economic development.


19

iv. Environmental management

The green initiatives of LGUs have had mixed outcomes. The initial coastal resource management measures implemented by the LGUs within the Lingayen Gulf area, particularly marine resource protection and rehabilitation, have started to generate positive results. In San Fernando, the city government is in the process of supporting a marine-based cottage industry to produce decorative pottery items that uses seashells as raw material mixed with clay, another raw material resource of the adjacent town. The shells from sea urchins and mussels have become abundant from harvests in marine parks and sanctuaries established by LGUs for the rehabilitation and conservation of coastal resources degraded from dynamite fishing or the use of environmentally and resource destructive methods.

Solid Waste Management (SWM) has become a by-word and a shared practice among LGUs for environmental management. Many LGUs have initiated measures to implement certain aspects of the SWM law. Most of these, however, involve the creation of the implementing structures and the pursuit of advocacy and information campaign for proper solid waste disposal. Unfortunately, these measures have fallen short of regularizing and institutionalizing waste segregation at the household level. Even San Fernando, which has served as model for waste processing and disposal technologies (cluster MRFs and an engineered land fill), has not succeeded in getting its citizenry citywide to practice waste segregation.

v. conclusion and recommendations

The LGUs in the region have continued to perform their mandated functions with that “comfortable level of operation and regularization of their devolved functions…governed by participatory, consultative and consensual approaches to local governance…” that was seen in the previous appraisal conducted. LGUs at all levels, after 18 years of LGC implementation, appear to have reached what in the organizational development parlance is known as the “norming-performing stages…where the organization has found a good way to work and with high levels of commitment and competence.”

This level of local governance as envisioned in the LGC has been achieved largely through partnerships between and among local governmental institutions with their NGA counterparts, LGU-based civil society organizations and NGOs largely of the traditional kind, and some or limited participation of the private sector. LGUs, in the process of local governance, have slowly but increasingly engaged with their partners and clients using participatory, transparent, accountable, and equitable service delivery mechanisms. These achievements notwithstanding, the LGUs still have a long journey to go “to attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities and …effective partners in the attainment of the national goals.”


20

It is therefore necessary to continue to empower local governments with authority and resources and to build their capacity to function as participatory institutions that are responsive and accountable to the concerns and needs of their constituents. Among these areas of capacity development are i) the technical capabilities of LGUs to sustain and expand basic service delivery and to manage cost-efficient service delivery, and ii) operationalization of the LGU-NGO/PO-private sector collaboration in service delivery and revenue mobilization.


21


22

About the WriterMs. Agnes Cargamento has had more than 20 years of experience

in the Philippines working with local and national government entities on sub-national (regional and local) governance policy and capacity development for socio-economic and spatial development

planning and local government management processes. She has also led or has been part of technical assistance teams for training and

capacity building for elected provincial councils in Afghanistan and for designing and piloting a project development and management

process for inter-commune joint undertakings in Cambodia. She specializes in organizational/institutional strengthening and capacity

development for socio-economic-physical planning, local resource mobilization and networking, and service delivery and performance monitoring and evaluation for local governments and regional and

local councils. Ms. Cargamento holds a master’s degree in urban and regional planning.

ilocos region 1 - the asia foundation field appraisal of decentralization: region 1 6 the ilocos...

Documents